COUNTERPOINT: Republicans are now in control — costly choice

When I went to the ballot box on Tuesday, I noticed something interesting – a long list of Republican candidates for unopposed offices.

Even having helped several local Democratic candidates run for office, I was still unaware how many offices were facing re-election. I had the option of voting straight ticket, which, in my case, gave me the opportunity to vote for one Green, two Democrats, or roughly 12 Republicans with one punch of the ballot.

My first reaction to this was uneasiness. Americans criticized the recent Iraqi elections because of the lack of choice given Iraqi citizens.

We pride ourselves on being different, but after local defeats, I wonder.

I’m sure that Gabe today would prefer to concentrate on the meaning of the national Republican victories, and while worth discussing, I’m more concerned about Utah.

Local government affects us more directly and what we saw on yesterday’s ballot should disturb us.

First of all, I expect people will argue that the lack of choice on the ballot is the fault of Democrats and Greens. I disagree.

Democrats and Greens have placed year after year viable candidates in races and met strong opposition. To run in any election puts one in an awkward position. Personal matters, off limits to casual conversation with one’s best friends, suddenly become a thing of interest to reporters and voters. Some people, who wouldn’t feign the same right in response to their neighbors, feel they can comment on a candidate’s moral character.

Overall, the cost benefits of running in an election make most people conclude any attempt would largely be thankless – and that’s if you feel you have a chance of winning.

As long as local residents don’t vote for Democrats or Greens, few Democrats and Greens will appear on local ballots, and voting will seem more perfunctory.

There is not an exhaustive supply of philanthropic people willing to fight quixotic battles just so we have a choice on the ballot.

That’s why I’m going to suggest two things for consideration, whether one voted Republican or not in local elections:

First, as long as there is a conviction that parties reflect people, choices will be limited for the majority as well as the minority. U.S. politicians adhere less to a specific party ideology than the politicians of almost any other democratic nation. This is usually how we like it because Americans want politicians to think outside of an ideological box. Somehow, this fact has escaped Utahns.

Second, local government rarely deals with the larger social issues of the day. Even school board curricula do not determine communities’ social values. Community individuals do. Therefore, voting a social conscience on a local level makes no sense.

Voting for a local Democrat yesterday would not have undermined anyone’s national agenda. It rather would just give local government more flexibility.

I believe Utahns even enjoy a government more flexible and open to hear more sides of an issue than one party’s definitive view. To give an example of this, Logan residents usually vote Democratic, though ignorantly, in elections when party affiliation does not appear on the ballot.

Maybe that means that straight-ticket voting means you don’t always pick all the best candidates. Even if, in my case, my straight-ticket vote only cast two votes.

However, I think I still had the pick of the litter.

Aaron Law is a senior majoring in political science. Comments can be sent to him at sinatrastrashcan@yahoo.com.